I'd like to make rule annotations more formal and more common:
Proto-proposal: up with annotations
{{{
Amend rule 1681 by replacing the words "and text, and must also
include any annotations to the rule required by order" with "text,
and interpretive annotations".
Retitle rule 789 to "Interpretive Annotations", and amend it to read
Each rule has attached a set of interpretive annotations. This set
is empty by default, and interpretive annotations can be added
and removed only as permitted by the rules. For the purposes of
rules governing modification of rules, a rule's set of interpretive
annotations is a substantive aspect of the rule. An interpretive
annotation, while attached to a rule that is in relevant aspects
the same as it was when the annotation was added, shall guide
application of that rule, but does not directly have force.
Whenever a CFJ whose statement alleges (either explicitly or
implicitly) that a rule should be interpreted in a certain way is
judged TRUE or FALSE, an interpretive annotation is automatically
added to the rule in question. If the CFJ was judged TRUE then
the annotation shall be the statement of the CFJ, and if the CFJ
was judged FALSE then the annotation shall be the contrary of
the statement of the CFJ. If a judgement that has resulted in
an interpretive annotation is overturned or otherwise cancelled,
the annotation is automatically removed from its rule.
Where e believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, the
rulekeepor may Without Objection cause an interpretive annotation
to be removed.
Change the power of rule 789 to 3.
[This separates annotations somewhat from CFJs. They can now come
from other sources, most obviously from proposals. Also, CFJs
on interpretation result in an annotation by default, instead of
requiring the judge to mandate it explicitly, which e hardly ever does.
Also clarified the role of annotations.]
Set each rule's set of interpretive annotations to those annotations
regarding interpretation that immediately before this proposal took
effect the rulekeepor was obliged to annotate the rule with.
[This is what the continuity provision of R1586 would probably do
anyway, but the change is sufficiently fundamental that there might be
some doubt.]
}}}
-zefram
